Julian Assange to be thrown under the bus

[Richard Stanley]

Of course, the surname 'Rich' is rather Bond-like, and simialrly also evokes the famous acting family of the Booths. As in James Wilkes-Booth. Bill Clinton had his Mark Rich, and now we have Seth Rich. 9/11 and its aftermath also had its beheaded 'Rich' boy (who was also involved spookily somehow in Oklahoma(?), and of whom you had a connection to his parents.

 

[Richard Stanley]

9/11 and its aftermath also had its beheaded 'Rich' boy (who was also involved spookily somehow in Oklahoma(?), and of whom you had a connection to his parents.

Oops, that was Nick Berg:

On May 14, 2004, it was revealed that Nick Berg had been investigated during the U.S. government's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Berg's email address had been used by Moussaoui prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks. According to Berg's father, Nick Berg had a chance encounter with an acquaintance of Moussaoui on a bus in Norman, Oklahoma. This person had asked to borrow Berg's laptop computer to send an email. Berg gave the details of his own email account and password, which were later used by Moussaoui. The FBI found that Berg had no direct terrorism connections or direct link with Moussaoui.[19]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg​

 

[Jerry Russell]

if such as the Faux News Channel crew is pushing this narrative then just this alone is enough to close my ears.

So if Fox News reported that Barack Obama won the 2008 and 2012 US presidential elections, you would close your ears and deny it just because they said so? But if it makes you feel any better, Fox News dropped the narrative like a hot potato when they realized it wasn't going to be the Official Story.

FWIW, here's a video in which Rod Wheeler very clearly explains his position. He says that a credible FBI insider, whose name he couldn't reveal, had told him that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks. This is, of course, very thin evidence: on the same level as the various anonymous intelligence leaks claiming that Russia supplied the DNC data to Wikileaks.

Kim Dotcom, founder of the New Zealand Internet Party: now there's someone I can trust. Here's his current public statement:

#SethRich was a hero​

​

I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.​

​

I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.​

​

Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful.​

​

I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics.​

​

"He wanted to change that from the inside."​

​

I was referring to what I knew when I did an interview with Bloomberg in New Zealand in May 2015. In that interview I hinted that Julian Assange and Wikileaks would release information about Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election.​

​

The Rich family has reached out to me to ask that I be sensitive to their loss in my public comments. That request is entirely reasonable.​

​

I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.​

​

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment.​

​

Specifically, what Dotcom said in 2015 was that Assange would be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. When asked why, he said that Assange "has information".

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/vide...com-assange-will-be-hillary-s-worst-nightmare

Of course, Mueller made no effort to get Dotcom's evidence. Gosh, maybe Mueller doesn't really care what happened, he just has a narrative to sell.

 

[Richard Stanley]

So if Fox News reported that Barack Obama won the 2008 and 2012 US presidential elections, you would close your ears and deny it just because they said so?

Yes I would, so Obama was not President. How could he, since he was born in Kenya, right?

But if it makes you feel any better, Fox News dropped the narrative like a hot potato when they realized it wasn't going to be the Official Story.

Yes, they do that from time to time, out of necessity to maintain some shred of credibility. It's like a lawyer at trial saying something improper in front of a jury, but the judge can't unring the bell. The propaganda on the left and 'center' MSM is usually more subtle, which one can argue may be more nefarious. The situation at Faux is so bad that the 'hard news' anchors are constantly forced to call out Trump's (talking head) brains for their clear bull shit.

I've covered this before, that it was Roger Ailes, back in his days with Richard Nixon, cooked up the idea for a right wing propaganda outlet, under the guise of being "fair and balanced". But in reality it has only served to polarize. Ailes, Stone, Kissinger, and more all connect to Trump.

FWIW, here's a video in which Rod Wheeler very clearly explains his position. He says that a credible FBI insider, whose name he couldn't reveal, had told him that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks. This is, of course, very thin evidence: on the same level as the various anonymous intelligence leaks claiming that Russia supplied the DNC data to Wikileaks.

So, you've left open the possibility, and probability in my mind, that Seth Rich was set up. Dead men tell no stories, true or not.

OK, so Hillary gets pissed and in her hysterical woman pique has Rich wacked, but the data is already in Assange's hands. The damage was done, but now Hill has no way to prove that Rich did it by getting his confession, because he's dead. Or, to prove that someone else did it by getting Rich to deny that he did it, because he's dead. Instead We get to depend on Kim Dotcom and Rod Wheeler on Faux News.

Specifically, what Dotcom said in 2015 was that Assange would be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. When asked why, he said that Assange "has information". https://www.bloomberg.com/news/vide...com-assange-will-be-hillary-s-worst-nightmare

So James Bondian Kim Dotcom says (about Rich). And you're quoting a Jewish news outlet? Don't let Miss Kitty know.

Mueller made no effort? Mueller doesn't care? Hey, now you're getting it. Mueller said that 19 Saudis attacked the USA, but allowed that Atta's passport was vaporware. He's got a narrative to sell.

 

[Richard Stanley]

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...y-only-newly-aware-of-wikileaks-1490788931709

Hilarious!!!!

 

[Jerry Russell]

Mueller made no effort? Mueller doesn't care? Hey, now you're getting it. Mueller said that 19 Saudis attacked the USA, but allowed that Atta's passport was vaporware. He's got a narrative to sell.

At what point in the past have I ever not "gotten it"?

The narrative he's selling, is that Russia hacked the election by stealing DNC data and giving it to Wikileaks; and by running the "Internet Research Agency" fake posts to social media. That's always been the narrative coming out of the Mueller investigation, and it's just as false and damaging as it ever was.

The only recent / new information, is that he's now saying that Trump isn't personally to blame for any of it.

Hilarious!!!!

Maddow is also still pushing the idea that the DNC data was stolen by the Russians. And if Maddow disagrees in any way with Pence's central point that Assange and Wikileaks must now be prosecuted as criminals for disseminating classified information, she certainly didn't say so.

 

[Richard Stanley]

That's always been the narrative coming out of the Mueller investigation, and it's just as false and damaging as it ever was.

Maybe so, but I don't know why you keep getting so twisted up by this. But, nobody knows what did or didn't happen, except a very few. If you're going to say that Mueller is lying because of what he did with 9/11 I can agree with that. Same goes for Barr with his past history, and Comey didn't do Hillary any favors (can't blame Putin for that for sure).

And if Maddow disagrees in any way with Pence's central point that Assange and Wikileaks must now be prosecuted as criminals for disseminating classified information, she certainly didn't say so.

Not the point, which is, the hilarious distancing from Wikileaks after being so hapy about the same.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Maybe so, but I don't know why you keep getting so twisted up by this.

Yes, I keep getting "twisted up" about this constant provocation of Russophobia in the mass media, that's leading only in one direction: towards World War III. Which could very well mean human extinction, or something close to it.

I've explained that before, haven't I?

Your video of Vladimir Pozner made the point that everyone is acting as if nuclear weapons don't exist anymore. I think it's the most important thing he said in that presentation.

But, nobody knows what did or didn't happen, except a very few.

For the most part, I disagree.

At an epistomological level, it's always a good idea to keep in mind that all the data could be falsified or wrong or misinterpreted. But in this case, there's an accumulated level of evidence that looks pretty solid to me. As a Bayesian, at least 99% certain.

Not the point

How can you be so certain what Maddow's true point was? Could she have two points -- you called attention to the first, and I called attention to the second?

 

[Richard Stanley]

If I understand it correctly, according to the following analysis, the domestic counter-intel Real Deep state hacks the DNC and somehow gets the data to Assange, I'm guessing having it laundered through a third party. Now, to cover their tracks they want to get their hands on Assange, having made him their vehicle to disseminate the data.

Thus Comey is indeed in on it, and likely Mueller, as conjectured. One can debate about whether or not it helped Trump win or not, but Comey, via this and his late announcement didn't do Clinton any favors. So, do this for what, just to embarrass Hillary, or to get Trump elected? And if all this is the case, then Hillary killed Rich, because she was told he did it, when he didn't? Whatever, if the domestic intel boys did the hack, he was a patsy.

And ... meantime Trump is already yacking it up about Wikileaks this and that, and that he loves Putin, while also playing with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook dark posts. As discussed before he's a great useful idiot, and while Bannon is yet calling him a genius and hero.

 

[Jerry Russell]

If I understand it correctly, according to the following analysis, the domestic counter-intel Real Deep state hacks the DNC and somehow gets the data to Assange, I'm guessing having it laundered through a third party.

I don't think that's what McGovern is saying. McGovern thinks that somebody hacked the DNC computers and left behind breadcrumbs falsely incriminating the Russians. That's what he means by saying, at about 38:00, that Guccifer 2.0 is a fraud. McGovern conjectures the fraud was carried out by someone associated with the FBI or NSA. He thinks it was probably done with the Vault 7 software.

Elsewhere I've discussed an alternate theory, that this hack was done by a Ukrainian team affiliated with the Clinton campaign.

At any rate, the purpose of the Guccifer 2.0 hack was to smear Assange with the allegation that the data was stolen by the Russians. In fact, Assange had obtained the data earlier, and by some other means. McGovern doesn't mention this here, but it isn't part of the story he's telling. His main focus in this talk is to advocate for freedom for Assange, to discuss the forces arrayed against him, and incidentally to disprove the Russian hack narrative.

I still don't see any reason to doubt that Seth Rich was involved in the insider leak, although I'll admit the possibility that he had some help, and that some password hacking or other exploits might have been necessary.

The sequence of events, first the leak by an insider and then a hack from outside, is discussed in this article by George Eliason:

https://washingtonsblog.com/2018/08/beyond-the-dnc-leak-hacks-and-treason.html

 

[Jerry Russell]

The Trump administration is speaking with a strangely forked tongue, when it comes to Wikileaks.

On the one hand, we have Sarah Sanders saying that all of Trump's praise of Wikileaks during the 2016 election season was just one big joke, and that now the administration is taking the prosecution of Assange and Manning very seriously. Indeed, she says, the Trump administration is "the only one to do anything" about them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...t-loving-wikileaks-sarah-sanders-says-n994296

Mike Pompeo, of course, has said that Wikileaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence agency." Moon of Alabama thinks this is probably because of the amazing leak of the "Vault 7" files, "Marble Framework" and "Grasshopper", which are the CIA's presumably most advanced tools for computer hacking. This leak occurred in April 2017, and nobody questions that it was an "inside job" by some disgruntled CIA employee; although the alleged leaker, Joshua Schulte, says he's been framed and it wasn't him.

So Assange is really good at getting leaks of inside information, with ongoing success, however he does it; and the Deep State wants it stopped.

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani gave an exclusive interview to the Washington Examiner, hinting that perhaps Trump would lighten criminal charges against Assange, if he would give testimony to exonerate Trump in the Russiagate case, and expose a "plot" involving Ukraine.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ine-was-behind-false-russia-collusion-charges

Giuliani said Assange's apprehension — after nearly seven years in the embassy — could benefit the president, who was recently exonerated of criminal collusion with Russia by special counsel Robert Mueller.​

​

"Maybe it will shed light on the plot to create an investigation of President Trump based on a false charge of conspiracy with the Russians to affect the 2016 elections. Keep your eye on Ukraine," Giuliani said. "It's possible with all his sources he might know or have information of how it all started."​

​

Giuliani specified that he was talking about Assange exposing the origins of the federal investigation of possible Trump collusion with Russia and was not raising the possibility of Assange disproving that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.​

​

Giuliani said he believed Assange may be able to "show who invented [the] false story that [Trump] colluded with Russians."​

I saw this story reported at Fort Russ, where they noted that this is an extremely limited hang-out on Giuliani's part, since he didn't mention that the DNC data was obtained by Wikileaks through a leak, not a hack.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/04/yuge-trumps-lawyer-to-wikileaks-assange-lets-make-a-deal/

Giuliani is a longtime deep state snake and what he is suggesting is negotiating a cover for CrowdStrike having laundered the CIA creation of supposedly Russian ‘fingerprints’ on the so-called ‘hack’ now proposed to be ‘outed’ as Ukrainian and bury the fact it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC mails out on a memory stick. The price to be paid by Trump’s most farcical persecutors (e.g. John Brennan) is a little egg on the face over ‘bad intelligence’ that can be forgiven. A simple matter of embarrassment as it were. Meanwhile, wrapping up loose ends, a few expendable DoJ personalities will have to fall on their swords (Steele Dossier.)​

​

Wikileaks knows the real score, and there is plenty of evidence in the public domain pointing to the reality but what remains to be seen is whether Wikileaks buys into Giuliani’s suggested lie to ‘rescue’ Assange (keeping the ‘hack’ narrative intact.) In other words it can never be admitted Central Intelligence Agency was behind the actual election meddling and attempted frame-up of a man who became President of the United States. This pitch to Wikileaks is likely agreed on terms between Trump’s Pentagon handlers (Pence faction), The Department of Justice and the intelligence agency big-shots. A peace treaty if you will.​

Fort Russ themselves don't mention the possibility that this hack really was by Ukrainians, albeit affiliated with the Clinton campaign.

 

[Jerry Russell]

CJ Hopkins is on a roll today. The entire essay is well worth reading, but here's the usual Postflavian snippet quote...

https://off-guardian.org/2019/04/16/uncle-toms-empire/

... Now I want to be absolutely clear. I totally defend Assange and Wikileaks, and the principle of freedom of the press, and whatever. And I am all for exposing American war crimes (as long as it doesn’t endanger the lives of the Americans who committed those war crimes, or inconvenience them in any way). At the same time, while I totally support all that, I feel compelled to express my support together with my personal loathing of Assange, who, if all those important principles weren’t involved, I would want to see taken out and shot, or at least locked up in Super-Max solitary … not for any crime in particular, but just because I personally loathe him so much.​

​

I’m not quite sure why I loathe Assange. I’ve never actually met the man. I just have this weird, amorphous feeling that he’s a horrible, disgusting, extremist person who is working for the Russians and is probably a Nazi....​

​

I don’t know where these feelings come from. If you challenged me, I probably couldn’t really support them with any, like, actual facts or anything, at least not in any kind of rational way. Being an introspective sort of person, I do sometimes wonder if maybe my feelings are the result of all the propaganda and relentless psychological and emotional conditioning that the ruling classes and the corporate media have subjected me to since the day I was born, and that influential people in my social circle have repeated, over and over again, in such a manner as to make it clear that contradicting their views would be extremely unwelcome, and might negatively impact my social status, and my prospects for professional advancement.​

I find myself wondering if maybe the attacks found on Assange on this very web page, are based in some variant of this phenomenon. Once someone such as Assange, or for that matter Putin, has been targeted by the Deep State and the Anglo-American establishment as an Enemy of the People -- it's impossible for even some of us at Postflaviana to consider the possibility that they might genuinely be well-intentioned individuals who are exceptionally effective enemies of the Deep State.

At least in the case of Assange, there seems to be no reasonable basis for anything except unqualified support. I'd go marching with a sign if there's a protest organized anywhere nearby. Maybe I'll even send a few bucks to his legal defense fund.

Are we in agreement? I'll probably be sorry I asked.

 

[Richard Stanley]

So Assange is really good at getting leaks of inside information, with ongoing success, however he does it; and the Deep State wants it stopped.

Maybe Assange is so good at getting leaks that the Deep State decided to use him as their vehicle? Who, that wasn't awake already that is, didn't know the CIA has been a very dirty imperial bird since it was the OSS?

Are we in agreement? I'll probably be sorry I asked.

I simply don't have any evidence to evaluate one way or the other whether or not Assange is a straight arrow or not, an agent. Gee, it's great that he revealed a bunch of data, but we knew the gist of this already.

Now Deep State Trump can cut the witting or unwitting cut-out loose. Putin says: "Yes, I didn't want Deep State Hillary to win, I wanted Deep State Trump to win, the beehive is abuzz looking for respective invaders, and meanwhile the Deep State perps of 9/11 and more get whitewashed.

It's ALL the shepherds fleecing the flocks Jerry.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Maybe Assange is so good at getting leaks that the Deep State decided to use him as their vehicle? Who, that wasn't awake already that is, didn't know the CIA has been a very dirty imperial bird since it was the OSS?

But in the "information wars" it is extremely valuable to have new information available, to confirm what we already know, provide additional and specific evidence about the issues, and wake up people who weren't previously aware. You never know what information might serve to drive someone from their previous state of complacency.

How does it benefit the Deep State to have Wikileaks information in the public domain? I imagine you could come up with some twisted scenario involving divide and conquer strategies. But in my view, the Wikileaks data doesn't contribute much to the various machiavellian false dialectics. On the contrary, it leads to insights that expose the real issues and the real culprits.

I simply don't have any evidence to evaluate one way or the other whether or not Assange is a straight arrow or not, an agent.

If you don't have any evidence, then why accuse the man of a great crime, and thus implicitly give your support to his enemies?

Gee, it's great that he revealed a bunch of data, but we knew the gist of this already.

You mean, some of us suspected the gist. But thanks to Assange, Manning, Snowden, Rich (and/or others at the DNC?), and the yet-unidentified Vault 7 leaker, we know a great deal of very convincing detail that we wouldn't have known otherwise. This is why the MSM is now fighting so hard to deflect attention from the facts that have been unveiled.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The game appears to me to destroy the republic, by most any means possible. All the evil deeds, to date, can thus be laid at the hands of the minions of the republic, from the ashes of which can rise the lilly white imperium. Albeit this contradicts my notion that Trump et al. is whitewashing such as the Bushes and the Clintons.

In any case, I don't see how admitting that Assange may be a patsy is giving support to his apparent, or my, enemies.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, but he had placed himself in a long, long 'lane' of intel spookery that enabled this to be so. He even went to the USSR, Russia, as a double agent. And then he became handled for the CIA by a 'White' Russian (a monarchist) once returning to 'home'.

You mean, some of us suspected the gist.

No, many people (yet still a significant minority), woke or semi-woke, have undertood for a long time that the USA was something far differnt besides its vapid rhetoric. That said, many yet still don't grasp the implications of the content of these whistleblowers. What good did the Pentagon Papers do beside the immediacy of helping end the Vietnam War? But now both the bees' nest and the hornet's nest has been disturbed.

Now there are a lot of strange bedfellows. Many, whether on the left or right still have a notion that the government somehow was on their side, but some infernal evildoers have managed to take over. I used to think this, but now I gnow the faux was always in the henhouse. The Savoyite 'invader', Albert Gallatin, speculating in west Pennsylvania real-estate, saved George Washington's financial goose, and garnered Swiss financing for the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Jerry Russell]

In any case, I don't see how admitting that Assange may be a patsy is giving support to his apparent, or my, enemies.

Umm.. isn't it me who is saying that Assange is a patsy, in the sense that he's being falsely accused of a crime he didn't commit: that is, espionage? And furthermore, I say, espionage against the Deep State is no crime in an ethical sense.

Whereas you're accusing Assange of being a double agent. Which, if true, would make him rightly an object of all the loathing that's being heaped upon him.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, but he had placed himself in a long, long 'lane' of intel spookery that enabled this to be so. He even went to the USSR, Russia, as a double agent. And then he became handled for the CIA by a 'White' Russian (a monarchist) once returning to 'home'.

Yes, and as a double agent he is not a sympathetic character, nor an innocent victim.

What good did the Pentagon Papers do beside the immediacy of helping end the Vietnam War?

If that's all it accomplished, isn't that praiseworthy? What more do you want?

Many, whether on the left or right still have a notion that the government somehow was on their side, but some infernal evildoers have managed to take over. I used to think this, but now I gnow the faux was always in the henhouse.

Couldn't both be true? The fox was always in the henhouse, and yet the US was better as a Republic than as the Imperialist Fascist Dictatorship it's becoming?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Umm.. isn't it me who is saying that Assange is a patsy, in the sense that he's being falsely accused of a crime he didn't commit: that is, espionage? And furthermore, I say, espionage against the Deep State is no crime in an ethical sense.

Whereas you're accusing Assange of being a double agent. Which, if true, would make him rightly an object of all the loathing that's being heaped upon him.

No, I've said several times that he could be a patsy, and even completely innocent. But he could be a double agent. I just don't know, and neither do you. Why argue about it? I'd rather focus on the bigger picture.

Possibly you're mistaking my quoting of MSM reports as an endorsement of everything they say? I'm interested in the narrative being presented and built. I watch all the reports of Trump's massive corruption, and thus ponder just how he was allowed to get so far in the electoral process, much less win. Maybe I'm all wet here, and Trump is as White as a snowflake, as Miss Kitty et al. insist?

There's just too many disturbing threads connecting everyone in this kaleidescope. Maybe we just need an acid trip to figure it out?

If that's all it accomplished, isn't that praiseworthy? What more do you want?

For people to actually take questioning authority seriously, and start by becoming a lot deeper in their analyses. Most people said OK, Vietnam and Watergate are past us, now let's getback to being good liddle Romans (and Hellenized Jews).

Couldn't both be true? The fox was always in the henhouse, and yet the US was better as a Republic than as the Imperialist Fascist Dictatorship it's becoming?

No, the imperium's emporiums will run the same, but the imperium's steam rollers will run more smoothly over the 'remnants' stiff necks while filling in their ass holes.

 

[Jerry Russell]

No, I've said several times that he could be a patsy, and even completely innocent. But he could be a double agent. I just don't know, and neither do you. Why argue about it? I'd rather focus on the bigger picture.

As bloggers, we can only look at evidence provided by others.

There is no actual evidence, zilch, nada, indicating that Assange is a double agent. The term 'patsy', taken literally, is correct; but at the same time it's insulting, indicating a stupid person who has been victimized. You used the term "useful idiot". This is ridiculous, Assange is not stupid nor anybody's fool.

If you don't want to argue: you could just admit I'm correct, and get back to discussing the bigger picture.

[What more do you want?] For people to actually take questioning authority seriously, and start by becoming a lot deeper in their analyses. Most people said OK, Vietnam and Watergate are past us, now let's getback to being good liddle Romans (and Hellenized Jews).

And how is that the Pentagon Papers' fault, or Ellsberg's? Ellsberg doesn't think Vietnam and Watergate are entirely past us; on the contrary, I'd say he thinks that the situation is the same, only worse, now.

No, the imperium's emporiums will run the same, but the imperium's steam rollers will run more smoothly over the 'remnants' stiff necks while filling in their ass holes.

Certainly a change for the worse, for the 'remnants' (that's us.) Whether the emporiums are better or worse off after the republic is gone, remains to be seen.

However: excuse me for detecting a note of outrage in your voice when you talk about the demise of the Republic. Just another stage in the process.

 

[Richard Stanley]

There is no actual evidence, zilch, nada, indicating that Assange is a double agent. The term 'patsy', taken literally, is correct; but at the same time it's insulting, indicating a stupid person who has been victimized. You used the term "useful idiot". This is ridiculous, Assange is not stupid nor anybody's fool.

I have indeed used the term 'patsy', several times. It doesn't necessarily imply anything whatsoever about an individual's intelligence, albeit it's certainly true that a less intelligent person 'may' be easier to fool. That said. sometimes the more intelligent a person is, if 'played' properly, can have his intelligence and vanity regarding such, used against him or herself. This is the principle of a conman, from 'confidence man'.

That said, if I were Assange, I would not have allowed the 'stolen' US government hacking tools to be part of a Wikileaks' package. It only feeds the perception that they were involved somehow in the process. I know, it's impossible that they were.

If there is "no actual evidence, zilch, nada, indicating that Assange is a double agent", then either Assange is innocent, a smart or dumb patsy, or a very good double agent. Agreed. (?)

If you don't want to argue: you could just admit I'm correct, and get back to discussing the bigger picture.

You just got trumped.

And, as I've been stating, Deep State (RDS) Trump got enthoned by RDS(s) Comey, Hillary, the Georgetown cabal, Faux News and Fiends, the Mercers, Cambridge Analytica, Facistbook, etc..

And how is that the Pentagon Papers' fault, or Ellsberg's? Ellsberg doesn't think Vietnam and Watergate are entirely past us; on the contrary, I'd say he thinks that the situation is the same, only worse, now.

Where did I say the Pentagon Papers or Ellsberg were at fault. I said nothing of the kind. What I said is that they made no difference to the long term operation of the Real Deep State, the underground imperium. Same thing for the Wikileaks dumps, ..... Yawn. Most people don't care, they care about their personal shit more, despite their sometimes loud and hypocritical claims to care about important stuff. It's only important to them if its a perceived jeopardy to their financials.

However: excuse me for detecting a note of outrage in your voice when you talk about the demise of the Republic. Just another stage in the process.

My seeming outrage is more from the lunacy of people outraged about various 'degradations' to their way of life and 'Christian' culture when 99.9% of them are the worst fucking Christians I can imagine, at least by what their Holy Book and propaganda claims for them.

That said, I have to admit some nostalgia for the dying republic, and that I do not endorse the coming bloodshed, and that relatively shortly or longly after I am turned to ashes that the more brutally efficient imperium will look much the same as the republic did. The American Republic was modeled upon Rome after all, for a reason.

I know that sometimes it's hard to believe, but I am yet human after all, and one of my flaws is to mirror others' emotional bilge back at them.

 

[Jerry Russell]

That said, if I were Assange, I would not have allowed the 'stolen' US government hacking tools to be part of a Wikileaks' package. It only feeds the perception that they were involved somehow in the process. I know, it's impossible that they were.

On the contrary: if Assange was using Vault 7 for espionage purposes, wouldn't he then have a motive to keep them secret? Both to avoid self-incrimination, and to keep the tools available for his own use?

If there is "no actual evidence, zilch, nada, indicating that Assange is a double agent", then either Assange is innocent, a smart or dumb patsy, or a very good double agent. Agreed. (?)

That seems to be a comprehensive list, and yet I'm not sure it covers all the nuance.

The statement "Assange is innocent" would mean that he is what he claims to be: a journalist who publishes classified or confidential information that is provided to him by leakers and/or hackers, with the motive of providing increased transparency to the public.

In the MSM and/or US, British, and Swedish courts, Assange has been accused of various crimes, ranging from narcissism and body odor, to sexual assault and rape, to espionage (hacking) or conspiracy to commit espionage, to conspiracy with the Russian government to undermine American democracy.

If Assange is falsely accused of all these charges, does that make him (by definition) a 'patsy', either smart or dumb? Wouldn't it be sufficient to simply say he's "innocent", or does the term "patsy" carry any additional meaning?

The term "Double Agent" is defined as "a spy pretending to serve one government while actually serving another." Applied to Assange, this is only coherent if one first assumes that he's a spy or espionage agent pretending to work for some government. He isn't making any such pretenses, but rather he claims to be a journalist working for the public benefit.

"Double Agent" would make sense only if we first accept the view that Assange appears to be carrying out espionage activities on behalf of the Russians, as claimed by the MSM and USG, and then turn that around and say that he's really working for the CIA instead.

Maybe the concern here would be more precisely stated, that Assange might be "controlled opposition" or a "lifetime actor"? That is, that he claims to be working for the public benefit, but in fact he's somehow under control of the "Deep State" or "Abrahamic Globalist Conspiracy" in one of its various manifestations?

Once we get all of our definitions and hypothesis straight, then the next step is to look at all the evidence, and see if any of it favors one hypothesis or another. We also need to consider whether there's any background experience that could establish prior probabilities.

You just got trumped.

A rather enigmatic statement. I haven't a clue what you mean.

Deep State (RDS) Trump got enthoned by RDS(s) Comey, Hillary, the Georgetown cabal, Faux News and Fiends, the Mercers, Cambridge Analytica, Facistbook, etc..

So we are in agreement that Trump did not get any meaningful assistance from the Russians? I would say he did get some small quantum of assistance from Assange, and from whoever released the DNC emails to him.

Where did I say the Pentagon Papers or Ellsberg were at fault. I said nothing of the kind. What I said is that they made no difference to the long term operation of the Real Deep State, the underground imperium. Same thing for the Wikileaks dumps, ..... Yawn.

By that criteria, the entire history of the last 2000 years can be dismissed with the same 'yawn'. Nobody has come up with the magic key that could stop the juggernaut cold in its tracks.

But, what's wrong with applauding those efforts that are at least pushing back, however ineffective they might be?